Search

ImportanceThe past decade saw rapid declines in opioids dispensed to patients with active cancer, with a concurrent increase in marijuana use among cancer survivors possibly associated with state medical marijuana legalization.ObjectiveTo assess the associations between medical marijuana legalization and opioid-related and pain-related outcomes for adult patients receiving cancer treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used 2012 to 2017 national commercial claims data and a difference-in-differences design to estimate the associations of interest for patients residing in 34 states without medical marijuana legalization by January 1, 2012. Secondary analysis differentiated between medical marijuana legalization with and without legal allowances for retail dispensaries. Data analysis was conducted between December 2021 and August 2022. Study samples included privately insured patients aged 18 to 64 years who received anticancer treatment during the 6 months after a new breast (in women), colorectal, or lung cancer diagnosis.ExposuresState medical marijuana legalization that took effect between 2012 and 2017.Main Outcomes and MeasuresHaving 1 or more days of opioids, 1 or more days of long-acting opioids, total morphine milligram equivalents of any opioid dispensed to patients with 1 or more opioid days, and 1 or more pain-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations (hereafter, hospital events) during the 6 months after a new cancer diagnosis. Interaction terms were included between each policy indicator and an indicator of recent opioids, defined as having 1 or more opioid prescriptions during the 12 months before the new cancer diagnosis. Logistic models were estimated for dichotomous outcomes, and generalized linear models were estimated for morphine milligram equivalents.ResultsThe analysis included 38 189 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer (38 189 women [100%]), 12 816 with colorectal cancer (7100 men [55.4%]), and 7190 with lung cancer (3674 women [51.1%]). Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more opioid days from 90.1% to 84.4% (difference, 5.6 [95% CI, 2.2-9.0] percentage points; P = .001) among patients with breast cancer with recent opioids, from 89.4% to 84.4% (difference, 4.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.4] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with colorectal cancer with recent opioids, and from 33.8% to 27.2% (difference, 6.5 [95% CI, 1.2-11.9] percentage points; P = .02) among patients with lung cancer without recent opioids. Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more pain-related hospital events from 19.3% to 13.0% (difference, 6.3 [95% CI, 0.7-12.0] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with lung cancer with recent opioids.Conclusions and RelevanceFindings of this cross-sectional study suggest that medical marijuana legalization implemented from 2012 to 2017 was associated with a lower rate of opioid dispensing and pain-related hospital events among some adults receiving treatment for newly diagnosed cancer. The nature of these associations and their implications for patient safety and quality of life need to be further investigated.

BackgroundRacism significantly contributes to inequitable care quality and outcomes for people of color with serious illness, their families, and their communities. Clinicians use serious illness communication (SIC) to foster trust, elicit patients’ needs and values, and deliver goal-concordant services. Current SIC tools do not actively guide users to incorporate patients’ experiences with racism into care.Objectives1) To explicitly address racism during SIC in the context of the patient’s lived experience and 2) to provide race-conscious SIC recommendations for clinicians and researchers.MethodsApplying the conceptual elements of Public Health Critical Race Praxis to SIC practice and research through reflection on inclusive SIC approaches and a composite case.ResultsPatients’ historical and ongoing narratives of racism must be intentionally welcomed in physically and psychologically safe environments by leveraging empathic communication opportunities, forging antiracist palliative care practices, removing interpersonal barriers to promote transparent patient–clinician relationships, and strengthening organizational commitments to strategically dismantle racism. Race-conscious SIC communication strategies, skills, and examples of talking points are provided.DiscussionRace-conscious SIC practices may assist to acknowledge racial dynamics within the patient–clinician encounter. Furthermore, race-conscious SIC may help to mitigate implicit and explicit bias in clinical practices and the exclusionary research cultures that guide them.

ObjectivesOn 3–4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “healing hearts and communities.” We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3–4 October 2023.MethodsDescription of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.ResultsThe Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event.Significance of resultsThe US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

Advance care planning (ACP) intends to support person-centered medical decision-making by eliciting patient preferences. Research has not identified significant associations between ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care, leading to justified scientific debate regarding ACP utility.To delineate ACP's potential benefits and missed opportunities and identify an evidence-informed, clinically relevant path ahead for ACP in serious illness.We conducted a narrative review merging the best available ACP empirical data, grey literature, and emergent scholarly discourse using a snowball search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar (2000-2022). Findings were informed by our team's interprofessional clinical and research expertise in serious illness care.Early ACP practices were largely tied to mandated document completion, potentially failing to capture the holistic preferences of patients and surrogates. ACP models focused on serious illness communication rather than documentation show promising patient and clinician results. Ideally, ACP would lead to goal-concordant care even amid the unpredictability of serious illness trajectories. But ACP might also provide a false sense of security that patients' wishes will be honored and revisited at end-of-life. An iterative, 'building block' framework to integrate ACP throughout serious illness is provided alongside clinical practice, research, and policy recommendations.We advocate a balanced approach to ACP, recognizing empirical deficits while acknowledging potential benefits and ethical imperatives (e.g., fostering clinician-patient trust and shared decision-making). We support prioritizing patient/surrogate-centered outcomes with more robust measures to account for interpersonal clinician-patient variables that likely inform ACP efficacy and may better evaluate information gleaned during serious illness encounters.

Informal caregivers of older adults experience a high degree of psychosocial burden and strain. These emotional experiences often stem from stressful tasks associated with caregiving. Caregiving supportive services that provide assistance for stressful tasks are instrumental in alleviating caregiving burden and strain. Research is limited on what types of supportive services caregivers are utilizing by relationship status and their source of information regarding these services. We sought to characterize caregiving supportive services use by caregiver relationship status.We analyzed cross-sectional data from the 2015 National Study of Caregiving limited to caregivers of older adults ≥65 years of age. Caregiver relationship status (i.e., spouse, child, other relative/non-relative) was the independent variable. Type of supportive service and source of information about supportive services were the dependent variables. Bivariate analyses were performed to examine the association with caregiver relationship status and associations between use of caregiving supportive services and caregiver and care recipient characteristics. Among service users, we measured associations between caregiver relationship status, type of supportive services used, and source of information about supportive services.Our sample consisted of 1871 informal caregivers, 30.7% reported using supportive services. By caregiver relationship status, children had the greatest use of supportive services compared to spouses and other relatives/non-relatives (46.5% vs. 27.6% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.01, respectively). Among users of services, there were no differences in type of services used. Spouses primarily received their information about services from a medical provider or social worker (73.8%, p = 0.001).Our findings highlight the need to ensure that other caregiving groups, such as spouses and other relatives/non-relatives, have access to important supportive services such as financial support. Medical providers and/or social workers should be leveraged and equipped to provide this information and refer to services accordingly.

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) individuals experience discrimination throughout the care continuum, including during serious illness and at end of life. High-quality palliative care requires that health professionals deliver individualized services that reflect the needs, experiences, and preferences of LGBTQ+ persons. Aim: To identify and appraise existing evidence related to the needs, experiences, and preferences for palliative and end of life care among LGBTQ+ individuals with serious illness. Design: Data-based convergent synthesis design reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from January 1, 2010 to November 6, 2020. Results: Of 4875 results captured, 69 articles underwent full-text review and 13 were retained for analysis. Most studies were from North America with trans individuals represented in 10 of 13 studies. Needs ( n = 6) included increased social support, institutional safety, economic and legal supports, and advocacy to mitigate health barriers.Experiences ( n = 12) were driven by fear and worry associated with discrimination/stigma,providers’ hetero-/cisnormative assumptions, homophobia and transphobia, social isolation, and an undignified death. Preferences ( n = 6) pertained to inclusion of chosen families in decision-making, disclosure of LGBTQ+ identity based on safety of the clinical environment, and a desire to maintain autonomy. Conclusions: The robustness of the science has improved regarding the needs, experiences, and preferences of trans individuals. Actionable, inclusive policies coupled with sustained and integrated cultural sensitivity training for health workers are mandatory. Interventional research is critical to enhance tailored palliative care for LGBTQ+ people and their chosen families.

Psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) is a burgeoning treatment with growing interest across a variety of settings and disciplines. Empirical evidence supports PAT as a novel therapeutic approach that provides safe and effective treatment for people suffering from a variety of diagnoses, including treatment-resistant depression, substance use disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Within the palliative care (PC) field, one-time PAT dosing may lead to sustained reductions in anxiety, depression, and demoralization-symptoms that diminish the quality of life in both seriously ill patients and those at end of life. Despite a well-noted psychedelic renaissance in scholarship and a renewed public interest in the utilization of these medicines, serious illness-specific content to guide PAT applications in hospice and PC clinical settings has been limited. This article offers 10 evidence-informed tips for PC clinicians synthesized through consultation with interdisciplinary and international leading experts in the field with aims to: (1) familiarize PC clinicians and teams with PAT; (2) identify the unique challenges pertaining to this intervention given the current legalities and logistical barriers; (3) discuss therapeutic competencies and considerations for current and future PAT use in PC; and (4) highlight critical approaches to optimize the safety and potential benefits of PAT among patients with serious illness and their caregivers.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid expansion of telehealth service delivery. We explored the experiences of a multidisciplinary palliative care team delivering telepalliative care for oncology inpatients during a 10-weeks COVID-19 surge in New York City. Methods/Participants We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with a targeted sample, employing a phenomenological approach with applied thematic text analysis. An interdisciplinary coding team iteratively coded data using a mix of a priori and inductive codes. Team members first independently reviewed each category, then met to reach consensus on recurring themes. The sample (n = 11) included a chaplain (n = 1), social worker (n = 1), pharmacist (n = 1), physicians (n = 3), physician assistant (n = 1), and nurse practitioners (n = 4). Results Participants described multidimensional clinician distress as a primary experience in delivering telepalliative care during the COVD-19 surge, characterized by competing loyalties (e.g., institutional obligations, ethical obligations to patients, resentment and distrust of leadership) and feelings of disempowerment (e.g., guilt in providing subpar support, decisional regret, loss of identity as a provider). Participants provided explicit recommendations to improve telepalliative care delivery for acute oncology inpatients in the future. Conclusion Palliative care clinicians experienced personal and professional distress providing inpatient telepalliative care during this COVID-19 surge. Clinician strain providing telehealth services must be explored further as the pandemic and utilization of telehealth evolves. Telepalliative care planning must include attention to clinician wellbeing to sustain the workforce and promote team cohesion, and a focus on infrastructure needed to deliver high-quality, holistic care for oncology patients and their families when in-person consultation is impossible.

PURPOSE: Research eliciting patients' illness concerns has typically focused later in the cancer continuum, rather than during cancer treatments. Family caregiver concerns are overlooked during this time. Less is known about how patients and caregivers prioritize concerns during cancer treatments, which holds potential for improving supportive oncology care (ie, primary palliative care). The purpose of this study was to elicit and compare which domains of supportive oncology are of highest importance to patients and caregivers during cancer treatments. METHODS: Freelisting, a cognitive anthropology method, was used to elicit concerns in order of importance. Freelist data were analyzed using Smith's salience index. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a caregiver subsample to add explanatory insights. RESULTS: In descending order, pain, death, fear, family, and awful were salient Freelist items for patients (n = 65), whereas sadness, time-consuming, support, anger, tired, death, and frustration were salient for caregivers (n = 24). When integrated with supportive oncology domains, patients' concerns reflected a prioritization of the physical (pain) and emotional (death, fear, and awful) domains, with less emphasis on social (family) aspects. Caregivers' prioritized the emotional (sadness, anger, death, and frustration) and social (time-consuming and support) domains, with less emphasis on the physical (tired) aspects. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that enhancing primary palliative care delivery by oncology teams requires systems thinking to support both the patient and caregiver as the primary unit of care. Primary palliative care may be improved by prioritizing interventions that address physical concerns among patients as well as key social concerns among caregivers to support the complex caregiving role while patients undergo cancer treatments.

This article is one in a series in which contributing authors discuss how the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are linked to everyday clinical issues; national public health emergencies; and other nursing issues, such as leadership, shared governance, and advocacy. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a 15-year plan of action to achieve the goals, was unanimously adopted by all UN member states in September 2015 and took effect on January 1, 2016. The Agenda consists of 17 SDGs addressing social, economic, and environmental determinants of health and 169 associated targets focused on five themes: people, planet, peace, prosperity, and partnership. The SDGs build on the work of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which were in effect from 2000 to 2015. The current article discusses the International Council of Nurses Global Nursing Leadership Institute and its integration of the SDGs into a global leadership and policy development program.

Family members of patients receiving palliative care for life-limiting illness face grief both before and after the patient’s death. While many will adapt, others will develop mental health challenges that may benefit from psychosocial intervention to support them in their grief. This chapter provides an overview of grief interventions in palliative care, with a focus on intervention for family members (i.e., those individuals who are close to the patient). Interventions can be delivered before the patient dies to address pre-death grief and reduce risk for negative bereavement outcomes, immediately following the patient’s death to support continuity of care, and in the long term to treat bereavement-related mental disorders. Additional information is provided on supporting palliative care clinicians who are impacted by the multiple patient losses that inherently come with their work. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research on grief interventions in palliative care.

Effective communication between the patients, families, and the healthcare team is essential to providing quality patient care. This is true for patients at any point on the cancer trajectory, but especially important for patients with advanced cancer. This chapter describes many of the key communication needs and challenges of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers and suggest strategies to communicate effectively about these complex issues. Some of the important communication tasks include discussions of prognosis, advanced care planning and end-of-life goals of care, palliative and supportive care, and hospice. When communicating with advanced cancer patients, it is essential to find ways to maintain hope. The authors also discuss important considerations when communicating with patients with advanced cancer from minoritized groups. Finally, the authors discuss communication strategies and programs that have been developed to communicate optimally with patients with cancer and their families. Enhancing the communication skills of members of the healthcare team is critical to providing patient-centered care for patients with cancer and their families.

Grief often begins at the time of a cancer diagnosis, commonly emerging as patients and their families of choice confront multiple losses throughout their illness and as the disease progresses, and often surging most intensely following the patient’s death. This chapter aims to promote family-centered care by equipping psycho-oncology clinicians with the skills needed to support those who are grieving, identify common grief reactions and risk factors for poor bereavement outcomes, and manage the grief experience using evidence-based interventions. Remaining mindful of the family’s cultural and spiritual needs as well as sources of disenfranchised grief, psycho-oncologists can provide empathic support, provide psychoeducation about adaptive reactions to loss and change, assess for maladaptive grief reactions, and make referrals for more specialized bereavement support when warranted.

Grieving often begins at the time of a diagnosis, continuing as the patient faces numerous role and functional losses, surging when death is anticipated, and most often manifesting most intensely for the family after the patient’s death. This chapter focuses on how palliative care clinicians may support those who are grieving, describing adaptive and pathological grief reactions and risk factors for poor bereavement outcomes. Additional information is provided on how to identify family members at greatest risk for debilitating grief reactions and how to assess and diagnose different bereavement-related mental disorders. The impact of patient loss among professionals is also reviewed.

The need for palliative care in our health care system has exponentially increased in the past few years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the aging population, and the increasing number of people living with serious illnesses. While nurses play a critical role in delivering palliative care, many lack confidence and knowledge, causing practice gaps in the clinical and psychological management of seriously ill patients. The collective burden of the pandemic has demonstrated the importance of palliative care education and training, specifically in communication, symptom management, and continuing education. All nurses, including nursing students, transitioning nurses, and practicing nurses, should be trained to offer generalist (or primary) palliative care, in accordance with the American Association of Colleges of Nursing Essentials: Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education. Provision of holistic, relationship-based, and integrated palliative care for patients and their families is an ethical obligation for all nurses.

This article is one in a series in which contributing authors discuss how the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are linked to everyday clinical issues; national public health emergencies; and other nursing issues, such as leadership, shared governance, and advocacy. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a 15-year plan of action to achieve the goals, was unanimously adopted by all UN member states in September 2015 and took effect on January 1, 2016. The Agenda consists of 17 SDGs addressing social, economic, and environmental determinants of health and 169 associated targets focused on five themes: people, planet, peace, prosperity, and partnership. The SDGs build on the work of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which were in effect from 2000 to 2015. The current article highlights SDG 16: "Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels."

The escalating global burden of serious health-related suffering makes the need for funded policies that integrate palliative care (PC) into the continuum of services more urgent than ever. Palliative specialists are uniquely positioned to merge their clinical expertise with empirical evidence to advocate for improved PC delivery. There is a vital feedback loop between advocacy and clinical practice that palliative specialists can leverage to influence key stakeholders and decision makers and bridge PC policy deficits. Sustained interdisciplinary partnerships are critical to evidence-based PC advocacy that addresses resource gaps, social injustice, and unmet and disparate needs. Although PC advocacy may appear optional or even frivolous at times, it is an essential skill for any practitioner working to improve care for seriously ill individuals and their families. This article highlights 10 pragmatic tips that palliative specialists can use to advocate for policy changes that enhance PC access and equity at institutional, local, national, and global levels.

A rapid review was conducted to synthesize evidence of palliative care delivery changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes were synthesized according to the eight domains of high-quality palliative care and enduring implications for oncology nurses beyond the pandemic discussed.The most significant changes occurred in the structure and processes of palliative care (Domain 1), where increased utilization of telehealth was critical in circumventing barriers imposed by COVID-19 mitigation. The suboptimal availability of community-based psychosocial supports for patients and caregivers and inadequate health system-based psychosocial supports for healthcare providers were highlighted (Domains 3-5). The pandemic also ushered in an increased emphasis on the need for advance care planning (ACP), where integrating its delivery earlier in the outpatient setting and shifting policy to promote subsequent virtual documentation (Domain 8) were essential to ensure care preferences were clarified and accessible before health crises occurred.Continuing to embrace and sustain systems-level changes with respect to telehealth, psychosocial supports, and ACP are critical to bridging gaps in palliative care delivery underscored by the pandemic. Oncology nurses are well positioned to fill these gaps in care beyond the pandemic by providing evidence-based, palliative care throughout the cancer continuum.

This article is one in a series in which contributing authors discuss how the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are linked to everyday clinical issues; national public health emergencies; and other nursing issues, such as leadership, shared governance, and advocacy. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a 15-year plan of action to achieve the goals, was unanimously adopted by all UN member states in September 2015 and took effect on January 1, 2016. The Agenda consists of 17 SDGs addressing social, economic, and environmental determinants of health and 169 associated targets focused on five themes: people, planet, peace, prosperity, and partnership. The SDGs build on the work of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which were in effect from 2000 to 2015. The current article highlights SDG 11-making "cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable."

Psychedelics are a class of psychoactive substances that were studied extensively between 1943 and 1970 as potential therapies for treating a host of mental health disorders, including addiction. Despite promising early results, U.S. psychedelic research was halted in the early 1970s with the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act. As the field of psychedelic-assisted therapy develops, nurses can decide the role they will play in the continuing clinical and scholarly research of these substances, which may soon be used in controlled settings to treat some of the most widespread mental health disorders. To prepare for this task, this article proposes that nurses become familiar with the history, relevant language, and scientific findings related to the field of psychedelic research. learn about existing psychedelic-assisted therapy and research resources. examine their thoughts, judgments, and opinions about therapeutic psychedelic use. consider the potential role of nursing in psychedelic-assisted therapies going forward.

New York City was a "global COVID-19 hotspot" in spring 2020. Many health teams rapidly transitioned to telehealth platforms. Little is known about the experiences of inpatient palliative care services who delivered telehealth services during the pandemic. This study was aimed to explore the experiences of an interdisciplinary palliative care team in meeting the holistic needs of oncology inpatients via telehealth over a 10-week period during the first COVID-19 surge. A targeted sample of interdisciplinary palliative specialists at an urban comprehensive cancer center participated in in-depth interviews that explored participants' experiences delivering physical, psychosocial, and spiritual care via telehealth. An interdisciplinary coding team followed a rigorous thematic text analysis approach and met regularly to reach consensus on emerging themes. Eleven palliative specialists from six disciplines (chaplaincy, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistant, and social work) participated. Seventy-three percent reported not receiving telehealth training prior to COVID-19 and 64% were "not at all" or "somewhat comfortable" delivering telepalliative care. Several themes were identified, including the barriers related to telehealth, the impact of telehealth on the quality of relationships with patients, their families, and coworkers, and the changes in perceived self-efficacy of fulfilling job responsibilities. Telehealth use has increased significantly during COVID-19, requiring further evaluation of its utility. Participants reported both positive and negative inpatient telepalliative care experiences associated with various domains of professional functioning, such as communication, relationships with key stakeholders, and self-efficacy. Enhanced telehealth training and support must be improved to sustain the palliative workforce and promote high-quality patient and family care in the future.In spring 2020, New York City was a COVID-19 global hotspot. The palliative care team at a major cancer center rapidly transitioned to a “virtual service” (i.e., telehealth) without any physical contact with oncology inpatients for a 10-week period. No infrastructure for inpatient telehealth had been established prior to the transition. We wanted to explore how effective the interdisciplinary palliative care team felt in meeting the psychosocial, spiritual, and physical needs of patients and their families via telehealth. The palliative care team consisted of advanced practice providers, physicians, a chaplain, pharmacist, and social worker. Through participant interviews, our research team identified common themes related to the barriers and facilitators of telehealth; various effects on the quality of relationships with patients, their families, and coworkers; and diverse experiences related to the team’s perceived effectiveness in delivering telepalliative care. There are several implications to consider. Inpatient practice settings must design telehealth infrastructures to ensure both patient and provider protections when in-person care is not possible. Multilevel policies must direct investments in telehealth training for health professionals to support high-quality care during future public health crises. Research should be directed toward developing and measuring enhanced telehealth interventions to support effective and holistic virtual palliative care delivery for inpatient settings.

ObjectiveOn October 5–6, 2021, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the 2nd Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to describe the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “Leave No One Behind — Equity in Access to Palliative Care.” We reflect on lessons learned in anticipation of the 3rd annual conference to be held October 3–4, 2022.MethodsDescription of the 2nd annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.ResultsThe Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The 2021 US-based innovative virtual conference featured 37 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across 11 diverse sessions with a focus on health equity and COVID-19 considerations. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing at the intersection of art and science. 278 registrants from at least 14 countries and 21 different states across the US joined the program, which served as a global debriefing for hospice and palliative care workers from diverse settings, contexts, and disciplines.Significance of resultsThe US WHPCD Celebration creates a virtual coming together for collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid vast changes in clinical practice, research, and policy, both locally and globally. In addition, our goal to ensure an internationally relevant, culturally inclusive, and multidisciplinary agenda will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

Evidence-based advocacy underpins the sustainable delivery of quality, publicly guaranteed, and universally available palliative care. More than 60 million people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have no or extremely limited access to either palliative care services or essential palliative care medicines (e.g., opioids) on the World Health Organization Model List. Indeed, only 12% of the global palliative care need is currently being met. Palliative care advocacy works to bring this global public health inequity to light. Despite their expertise, palliative care practitioners in LMICs are rarely invited to health policymaking tables - even in their own countries - and are underrepresented in the academic literature produced largely in the high-income world. In this paper, palliative care experts from Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Sudan, Uganda, and Zambia affiliated with the International Association for Hospiceamp; Palliative Care Advocacy Focal Point Program articulate the urgent need for evidence-based advocacy, focusing on significant barriers such as urban/rural divides, cancer-centeredness, service delivery gaps, opioid formulary limitations, public policy, and education deficits. Their advocacy is situated in the context of an emerging global health narrative that stipulates palliative care provision as an ethical obligation of all health systems. To support advocacy efforts, palliative care evaluation and indicator data should assess the extent to which LMIC practitioners lead and participate in global and regional advocacy. This goal entails investment in transnational advocacy initiatives, research investments in palliative care access and cost-effective models in LMICs, and capacity building for a global community of practice to capture the attention of policymakers at all levels of health system governance.

Clinicians in health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) often work in practices with fewer resources and higher workloads, challenging recruitment and retention efforts. Nurse practitioners (NPs) frequently care for underserved patients in HPSAs. As a result, HPSA NPs may be susceptible to poor workforce outcomes, including burnout and job dissatisfaction. Using multiple logistic regression, our study assessed the relationship between the work environment and the odds of burnout and job dissatisfaction, and whether HPSA status moderated the relationship between a good work environment and lower odds of these negative outcomes. Consistent with prior research, we found that better work environments significantly decreased the odds of burnout and job dissatisfaction. Working in an HPSA was not associated with NP burnout or job dissatisfaction, nor did HPSA moderate the relationship between the work environment and NP job outcomes. Thus, improving work environments holds promise for reducing negative NP workforce outcomes regardless of HPSA designation.